Before
Torruella, Lipez, and Kayatta,
Circuit Judges.
April 4, 2014
Rule 60(a) and to the district court's power to amend its judgments
nunc pro tunc as procedural mechanisms that might accommodate their
unusual request, but the district court denied their motion as a
procedurally inapt gambit to secure a substantive solution.
The
-3-
I.
Background
On January 12,
-4-
court
entered
judgment
dismissing
all
claims
with
their interest in the full amount owed under the settlement, the
plaintiffs joined a number of other malpractice judgment creditors
in moving to dismiss HDI's bankruptcy petition on the grounds of
fraud and bad faith, arguing that HDI had operated Hospital Damas
without a license (and that Fundacin had been the properlylicensed entity), had falsely represented that it was licensed, and
had misled creditors and the court by using the facility's name-that
is,
"Hospital
corporation itself.
Damas"--as
if
that
name
referred
to
the
Relying in
defendant
responsible
for
the
obligations
incurred
by
concluded
that,
as
worded,
the
plaintiffs'
request
"ma[de] little sense, and . . . would not give Plaintiff the result
she wants."
it
was
responsibility.
the
settlement
agreement
that
assigned
So
construing the motion, the magistrate judge noted that "nunc pro
tunc judgments are usually concerned with correcting simple errors
in order to properly reflect an action actually taken by the court;
they are not meant to alter the judgment." (emphasis in original).
The
magistrate
judge
further
concluded
that
the
motion,
if
"far beyond" the sort granted in the cases on which the plaintiffs
relied.
Continuing on, the magistrate judge further observed that
amendment of the judgment would do little, because "the judgment in
this case merely approved the parties' settlement agreement and
dismissed the case with prejudice; it did not enter judgment
against any party."
(emphasis in original).
(footnote omitted).
Observing that
the
magistrate
(emphasis in original).
judge
concluded
that
the
In
-8-
On
and
the
substantive
concerns
the
magistrate
judge
It further concluded
circumvent
the
contractual
requisites
of
settlement
agreement."
Adding
belt
to
suspenders,
the
district
court
also
-10-
to 28 U.S.C. 1291.
II.
Standard of Review
Bowen Inv.,
Inc. v. Carneiro Donuts, Inc., 490 F.3d 27, 29 (1st Cir. 2007).
III.
Analysis
Bowen Inv., Inc. v. Carneiro Donuts, Inc., 490 F.3d 27, 29 (1st
Cir. 2007) ("A motion under [Rule 60(a)] is appropriate where the
-11-
Rather, if there
Ins. Co. v. Travelers Indem. Co. of Ill., 465 F.3d 38, 42 (1st Cir.
2006) ("Reformation is not available to correct mistaken factual
assumptions about the parties' bargain, but may be used to correct
misrepresentations of the parties' contractual intent.").
And
and
declaring
settlement.
that
it,
too,
would
have
agreed
to
the
-12-
of
the
their
brief
on
appeal
to
question
of
whether
issue
These
And however
Conclusion